Ruse versus Nelson: What Would Make Us Change Our Minds? An Unconventional Debate, October 4
| September 12, 2007 | Posted by Paul Nelson under Intelligent Design |
An alert mind keeps in reserve and in good trim all that’s needed to destroy its dogmas and opinions. It is always prepared to attack its “feelings” and to refute its “reasons.”
— Paul Valery, Analects
Next month, on Thursday, October 4, Michael Ruse and I are going to have a sort of un-debate. Each of us will be asked to spell out what would change our minds about the other’s position. More to the point, what would persuade us to adopt the opposing stance on evolution or ID?
What evidence, what arguments, what whatever, would change Michael Ruse’s view of intelligent design? Conversely, what would turn me into a card-carrying Darwinian?
Go here for information about the debate location and time. See you there.
68 Responses to Ruse versus Nelson: What Would Make Us Change Our Minds? An Unconventional Debate, October 4
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
bonagain77, you wrote:
“Patrick nailed it down as for your frame of mind. You are making claims which we disagree with, and we show hard empirical evidence of why your claims will not work.”
Sorry, I missed the evidence – I got a few bits and pieces about things being broken, but no real evidence. If you want to provide some then do so.
“But you, instead of providing hard empirical evidence to back up your claims, restate your beliefs as if this is a valid refutation with empirical evidence. Maybe in your mind you refuted us.”
I wasn’t trying to refute anything. Our discussion centred on whether evolution had been falsified, based on your claim that there were no beneficial mutations, which I think we both concluded was not the case – there are beneficial mutations. So that attempt to falsify evolution foundered. I you want to try again with a different line, I’m happy to listen.
“You state the fossil record is proof! We disagree! Thus you must prove that the jumps seen in the fossil record are possible on the molecular level. In other words, Show us a beneficial mutation on the molecular that does not in reality break something, or modify a preexisting function, and show how it improves the organism above the level of the genetic entropy of the parent species, if you want to be taken seriously on this site!”
Er, our discussion was based on your (incorrect) claim that there are no beneficial mutations. Now, if you are saying that we are finished with that, and that there is some other thing that falsifies evolution then go ahead and recast your point in a more coherent form.
Gareth
That’s speculative. Unfortunately for the chance theory nothing but simple changes have been observed to result from random mutation. In the past one could claim that if enough generations could be observed we’d see the simple mutations piling up to become complex new structures. However, now that we’ve observed the changes occuring at the nucleotide level in p.falciparum (see Behe’s “Edge of Evolution”) over billions of trillions of generations and found no novel complex structures emerging in all that mutational opportunity, it seems on the face of it to have verified the predictions of ID that RM+NS is effectively incapable of accounting for the extant complexity we see in living things.
I’ve yet to see an explanation from anyone about why p.falciparum failed to generate any novel complexity greater than two or three interdependent point mutations when given vastly more opportunity (generations) than all the mammals that ever lived. The ID prediction was verified in real life while the random mutation prediction was falsified. Please address this enigmatic problem for the chance theory. Continued silence on it will be taken as an admission of defeat.
I’ll let Dave deal with the p.falciparum subject but the mere fact that’d you say this:
…indicates that you don’t comprehend the subject matter.
For 1. design IS the cause of common descent, which is not really a process, rather it’s a pattern imputed to the observations of nature made by observers from the outside. Common descent has functioned more as an abstract heuristic akin to the practice of making sense of groups (who’s in, who’s out) and of then relating those groups by a process of elimination. Although it should be noted that ID is compatible with Universal Common Descent, Common Descent through multiple LUCAs, and other scenarios.
For 2. components of all life are irreducibly complex. Not all components are IC nor are they CSI. The question is whether unguided Darwinian processes (RM+NT, lateral gene transfer, symbiogenesis, reliance on hox genes, whatever) can produce IC and/or CSI components via Indirect Pathways. Unguided Darwinian processes “probably” (as in, my opinion) ARE capable of producing components that are composed of 3-6 parts (for comparison the flagellum is 41 and the most observed I’ve ever heard of is 2 or 3). Again, part of ID research is determining the limits of unguided Darwinian processes. Agreeing that there are beneficial mutations and limited instances of small changes is in no way a threat to ID or an admission of some sort…we’ve been saying this for years to deaf ears.
You apparently missed this comment I made above: “A series of small changes have to come about independently, each having positive selective pressure, and then indirectly come together to form a new whole.” This is called an Indirect Darwinian pathway. The reason a Direct Darwinian pathway isn’t an option is due to Irreducible Complexity. Darwinists do not like to tacitly admit that IC is a factor but that’s why all current research is now directed upon Indirect Darwinian pathways.
Your understanding of the subject matter is in error. The simplistic view of Darwinism of the past that you apparently adhere to is wrong.
Gareth is no longer with us.
Gareth, I must thank you for compelling me to update the Put a Sock In It article. To other mods: how about chipping in and covering more of the common irritating arguments?
Patrick
When backed into a corner Gareth got stupid and belligerent. In answering the question of p.falciparum he must have been channelling Lamarck – according to Gareth p.faciparum didn’t evolve any complexity because it didn’t need any. I guess if p.falciparum had to stretch its neck to reach the higher leaves its progeny would have longer and longer necks as Larmarck believed happened with the giraffe. Must be p.falciparum has no need to survive in temperate climates or use any transmission vector other than mosquitos so that’s why it doesn’t bother evolving.
After getting stupid Gareth then got belligerent and demanded to know where random mutation stops and ID starts and if I didn’t answer it I was admitting defeat. Basically the asshat was asking where is the edge of evolution. I sincerely doubted he would bother reading Behe’s book entitled (duh) “The Edge of Evolution” for the answer so I just axed him instead.
Does the moderation policy explicitely state that belligerent stupidity is cause for termination?
[...] and Ruse will debate the issue of Intelligent Design. Well, kind of. Here is Nelson’s description of the upcoming event: Next month, on Thursday, October 4, Michael Ruse and I are going to have a [...]
[...] are/were scheduled to have a debate for discussing what it would take for them to switch sides. Here is a link to Paul Nelson’s announcement where he said “Michael Ruse and I are going to have a sort of [...]